User talk:Jfairhead

I have attempted to undo the deletion of my added paragraph to the Percy Schramm article. I have not seen any explanation of this deletion, tho I can guess some possibilities.

While very much open to discussion, I would like to defend my added paragraph which refers to criticisms of Schramm for the following reasons:


 * As it stands, the article is heavy on Schramm's (quite reasonable) claims to distinction and makes no mention of any dissenting views which were (at the time) significant. It is surely thus rather lop-sided?


 * My one added paragraph is factual and referenced (cf Wiki guidelines) and mentions some criticisms of Schramm. It follows two other paragraphs which are both factual and broadly approving. I would say, therefore, that a reasonable balance is restored. The paragraph tries to deal fairly with these dissenting views, which were of two sorts:

— widely-aired suspicions that Schramm was being a Nazi apologist (see for example editorials in Suddeutsche Zeitung, which prompted a round-table debate to discuss such charges and other criticisms — I can give refs if needs be)

— criticisms, both direct (by Eric Voegelin, the philosopher of history) and indirect (by various others) of Schramm's missing the point with his judgments about Hitler


 * In order to substantiate this second stream of criticism, I have cited Voegelin's book Hitler & the Germans. In it Voegelin carefully contrasts Schramm's approach with that of the (of course) acclaimed historian Alan Bullock who (as Voegelin shows, as quoted at foot of this page) is not afraid to make penetrating judgments on Hitler, where Schramm (as Voegelin shows) resorts to platitudes. Voegelin also draws carefully from celebrated contemporary German writers (whom I have referenced, such as Carl Amery, Robert Musil, and also I should mention Karl Kraus) who present the 'problem of Hitler' in a way that is diametrically opposed to that of Schramm.


 * In this way, I suggest that this second stream of criticism is not a negligible position, that should be ignored, as long as such views are kept in proportion (cf Wiki guidelines), and are intellectually credible:

— In terms of weight, I have indeed (I hope) kept things in proportion. I have devoted a full half of my (solitary) paragraph to the 'other dissenters' and only the second half to the existence and circumstances of Voegelin's critique (some four and a half lines), but without going into details, as this would be inappropriate — interested readers can follow up the reference of course. Also adding balance to this paragraph is the fact (which I mention) that Voegelin defends Schramm from those charges of being a Nazi apologist

— In terms of credibility, Voegelin's thesis that intelligent people (including historians such as Schramm) can be effectively 'stupid' is carefully argued, and draws authority not just from 1000 years of classical thought but from the well-respected modern German writers mentioned above. Voegelin's status as a commentator is further enhanced by the fact that he has 34 volumes of collected works in print, most of which give extensive historical and philosophical authority to his contention that spiritual blindness is a root problem within modernity.


 * Last but not least, if it seems strange (and uncomfortable, or unnecessarily blunt) to make a mere one line reference to the (surely intriguing?) possibility argued by Voegelin that clever people (like Schramm) are sometimes 'stupid', then this is understandable enough, but misguided. The same accusations were made, Voegelin reminds us on p151, against Bullock, who has a similar conception of 'stupidity' in mind when he refers (p804 Hitler A Study in Tyranny) to Hitler's "ugly and strident egotism, [and] moral and intellectual cretinism". As Voegelin notes:

‘German critics have sometimes rebelled against and criticized this vocabulary, saying that value judgments have been made here or that the expressions are vulgar. This opinion has its origin in their profound lack of philosophical education. For if I may remind you of the earlier lectures, the concept of stupidity, of folly, the loss of reason, the pneumopathic condition, and so on, are not terms of abuse, but technical terms for the analysis of spiritual structure…'

I do hope that you will agree that my paragraph helps maintain the spirit (note the word) of Wiki. By all means let me know how I can improve on it. Thanks.

With best wishes James Fairhead University College Cork Jfairhead (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)